Supremacy of conscience, but only if formed by the Church.

ccord­ing to Don­um Ver­i­tatis (which I also write about here, here, and here), con­science gives us no ratio­nale to dis­sent from the Church. That con­science is “supreme” does not mean that it is sub­jec­tive, or that it is above the Church. “Argu­men­ta­tion appeal­ing to the oblig­a­tion to fol­low one’s own con­science,” the CDF says, “can­not legit­i­mate dis­sent.” Although every believ­er

must fol­low his con­science, he is also oblig­ed to form it. Con­science is not an inde­pen­dent and infal­li­ble fac­ul­ty. It is an act of moral judge­ment regard­ing a respon­si­ble choice.

 

[This means that con­science is about doing what is right, not what one wills. What is right we learn from the teach­ing Church.]

 

A right con­science is one duly illu­mined by faith and by the objec­tive moral law and it pre­sup­pos­es, as well, the upright­ness of the will in the pur­suit of the true good. …

Set­ting up a supreme mag­is­teri­um of con­science in oppo­si­tion to the mag­is­teri­um of the Church means adopt­ing a prin­ci­ple of free exam­i­na­tion incom­pat­i­ble with the econ­o­my of Rev­e­la­tion and its trans­mis­sion in the Church.

The Holy Spir­it guides the Church into all truth so that believ­ers may form their con­sciences right­ly.

With the aid of New­man, Car­di­nal Ratzinger devel­ops this thought at length in “Con­science and Truth.”

Accord­ing to New­man, the papa­cy is not sep­a­rate from the pri­ma­cy of con­science. Rather, it guar­an­tees it. Ratzinger com­ments:

Mod­ern man has dif­fi­cul­ty under­stand­ing this. For him, con­science stands on the side of sub­jec­tiv­i­ty and is the expres­sion of the free­dom of the sub­ject. Author­i­ty, on the oth­er hand, appears to him as the con­straint on, threat to and even the nega­tion of, free­dom.

But mod­ern man, of course, has it wrong. Author­i­ty (and the pope is the high­est author­i­ty in the Church) is not the “nega­tion of free­dom.” Indeed, the Church alone guar­an­tees con­science right­ly formed. For con­science is “the demand­ing pres­ence of the voice of truth.” All of us are oblig­at­ed to do good and avoid evil, and good and evil are objec­tive. They are not the prop­er­ty of the sub­jec­tive self. There is no “my good” or “your good.” There is only the good.

New­man, as Ratzinger points out, con­vert­ed to Catholi­cism because he “was much more tak­en by the neces­si­ty to obey rec­og­nized truth than his own pref­er­ences.” In oth­er words, he had a con­science. His con­science led him to put truth above pref­er­ence.

Nor can one appeal to “free­dom” in order to jus­ti­fy pref­er­ence over truth. True free­dom is free­dom, not so much of con­science, but the free­dom to fol­low con­science.

The Church teach­es that we have an oblig­a­tion to form our con­science. The Cat­e­chism says:

Con­science must be informed and moral judg­ment enlight­ened. A well-formed con­science is upright and truth­ful. It for­mu­lates its judg­ments accord­ing to rea­son, in con­for­mi­ty with the true good willed by the wis­dom of the Cre­ator. The edu­ca­tion of con­science is indis­pens­able for human beings who are sub­ject­ed to neg­a­tive influ­ences and tempt­ed by sin to pre­fer their own judg­ment and to reject author­i­ta­tive teach­ings. (1783)

A prop­er­ly formed con­science, in oth­er words, is a cor­rec­tive to the “reject[ion of] author­i­ta­tive teach­ings.” It is not an excuse for it. Nor does con­science mean mak­ing one’s own judg­ments.

The for­ma­tion of con­science must be “guid­ed by the author­i­ta­tive teach­ing of the Church” (1785). When one rejects the Church’s author­i­ty, he may make an “erro­neous judg­ment” (1790, 1792).

All of this is to say that con­science, in its right mean­ing, will prompt a per­son to obey the teach­ing of the Church. Only then can it be said to have “suprema­cy.”